8/3/2019 Dc Circuit Sex Crimes

1/2

United States Court of AppealsFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUM BIA CIRCUIT

No. 10-3057 September Term, 2011FILED ON:FEBRUARY 21,2012

JOEL ANTONIO SANDOVAL,

APPELLANT

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:09-cr-00083)

Before: TATEL,GARLAND, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of

Columbia was presented to the court and briefed by counsel. The court has afforded full

consideration to the issue presented and has determined that it does not warrant a

published opinion. See D.C.CIR.R.36(d). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

The issue on appeal is whether, following the appellants entry of a guilty plea for

travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct,see 18 U.S.C. 2423(b), the district

court properly raised his offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines

pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2A3.1(b)(6)(B). That provision prescribes a two-level

enhancement if the offense involved the use of a computer or an interactive computer

service, and that computer or computer service was used [1] to persuade, induce,

entice, or coerce a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct, or . . . [2] to facilitate

transportation or travel, by a minor or a participant, to engage in prohibited sexual

USCA Case #10-3057 Document #1359308 Filed: 02/21/2012 Page 1 of 2

8/3/2019 Dc Circuit Sex Crimes

2/2

conduct. The appellant objects to application of the enhancement and contends that the

district court failed to specify whether it was imposing it based on the first or second

ground described in 2A3.1(b)(6)(B).

The appellant did not make this objection in the district court, however, but rather

merely asserted that no specific offense characteristics should apply. J.A. 45. Because[a]n objection is not properly raised if it is couched in terms too general to have alerted

the trial court to the substance of the appellants point, our review is limited to whether

the district court committed plain error. United States v. Bolla, 346 F.3d 1148, 1152

(D.C. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted)). There is no plain error here. In

deciding to apply the enhancement, the court explicitly adopted the findings of the

Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), which specified that U.S.S.G. 2A3.1(b)(6)(B)

should apply because [t]he offense involved the use of a computer to facilitate the travel

of the participant. PSR 14. The appellant did not dispute that finding, and indeed

there is no dispute that he used a Palm Pilot device to arrange the logistics of the

intended meeting. A trial court may accept any undisputed portion of [a] presentence

report as a finding of fact, FED.R.CRIM.P. 32(i)(3)(A);see, e.g., United States v.

Reeves, 586 F.3d 20, 23-24 (D.C. Cir. 2009), and the courts adoption of the PSR makes

clear that its rationale for applying the enhancement was based on the second prong of

2A3.1(b)(6)(B).

The Clerk is directed to withhold the issuance of the mandate herein until seven

days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See FED.R.APP.P.41(b);

D.C.CIR.R.41(a)(1).

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Jennifer M. Clark

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #10-3057 Document #1359308 Filed: 02/21/2012 Page 2 of 2